Adherence to statin therapy in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk in real clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the proven efficacy of lipid-lowering therapy, adherence to long-term statin therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease remains low. Aim. To study adherence to long-term statin therapy and factors associated with adherence in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk (CVR) in real clinical practice. Materials and methods. The single-center cohort study included 53 patients (mean age 68.1 ± 10.2 years) with high or very high CVR on the SCORE scale and have been taking statins for at least 3 months prior to inclusion in the study. The level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), cognitive impairment (MoCA test), anxiety and depression (HADS scale), presence of senile asthenia (FRAIL scale), M. Charlson comorbidity index were assessed. Adherence to statin therapy was assessed using the original questionnaire. The correlation between patient adherence and ordinal variables for the scores of the studied scales was studied. Results. Completely adherent to statin therapy were only 12 (22%) patients, 14 (26%) were insufficiently adherent, 27 (51%) were non-adherent. The target level of LDL-С was achieved in 13 (25%) patients. 38 (72%) patients showed a decrease in cognitive functions; a positive correlation was found between adherence and the MoCA test (r = 0.44, p = 0.04). Clinical and subclinical depression and anxiety were noted in 12 (23%) and 14 (26%) patients, respectively. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between adherence and depression (r = –0.32; p = 0.04) and a positive correlation between adherence and anxiety (r = 0.44; p = 0.04). There was no statistically significant correlation between adherence and the FRAIL fragility scale, as well as the M. Charlson comorbidity index. Conclusions. Depression and cognitive decline are associated with decreased adherence to statin therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".